HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.04271987 .. ._ ---- _..... . _. .. __ : ..... _._.. .
,.�.�,; • . . ,. . ,
: > �)�`. . ?.,: �,�.,��,, ,. � t ,}� �',���� .
. � �y
,y��^} +.�ryj�',° {��Y,� E) w ,�! - �"^ �t • � �'��, . . , 5.� 5
.,,�l���'��'�����tGti�l�d{tb.����.�F�!�:'i47• }��Cl�' , .. '�'.� t .._� �� � u�:�ia�'y h,
ryt J.
, . t1�1�,7 _
!
1
. i
f` E:.r.��,r r� ��r- c����r��rv _r.�,r7i��r s=.z otv���::
f-,�F..GIiLFiF; thGETIhIG
hIi�IVIJCiYa �:7 RRRLI_. 15:_7 '� '
.t_�,�
':i?:1.
LRhiG �t=:E - -- �
�--
�.00 a•rn. 1IrF;�L^ LnT SFf_IT GE7RIL_ED FP1G FTNHI_ F'LHi �:EVSFW, �t
' FF�hu_I�� k:�i2lyRMirfi Y,`-'�
{ � . �
s=� ri.30 1ST �'EFOING FNU aET PUBLIC HERRING ;•r'
� Indivi.d��a I _,ewage Ciisposa I r:ystern FlpFl i�at ion �Fec
i Ernery�n�y R�sc�lution, E:ob IJ•_�Iso
�°� �+:4� Memoranda of Und�_rstan�in� with Vnlu�'t��sr �;uarch ^c< q,,,, __`
'��,� R�s�_ue Ilnits- Bil I I��iF•F• '
�r �
'� ,,ai� 10.00 Resolutions and Contracts t°`
Flinutes C?-3(1—z7 0- 4-13—c:7i ��
�� 2nd �'�_ading 1��,36 :���F.Flernental FpF•ri�F•rietions
HsF•an Grocery—•�+-L E:�er TrensFer of C�wr�Frshi�•, f.ie�
'��� Whit�_stone
``'j Wildfire �u�•F�ression� Foresfi S._•rvice. Bob Eraudis ��
'^� Landin;� Fees—Fua_I Flawa3� F�_es, F_�J Thurrnond/r,ary �
. r-
Esary �
i<;;; ChilrJ Proter_tivn ANtar�ness W�=ek. Mik� Srhultx
- 10:30 H•t1- BRFHF�' �
't�;;� 10:4� County Manayer F_valuati�n fevicw UocumF�nt� _�ohn �
�:�'j Eldert �
°;'j l I:30 Execut ive aession, Torn 3mith i ,
`-`� 12:00 flDJUURN l
�t:. �'..
;�
�r, =:30 PUBLIC HEAaING FND 3RG REFDING �;
`...;'� 6rush i_r�_ek Vil la�? =��.ibdivision Roa� Wei3ht _
�'�strictians> �ary Esary
;.
'� GFIF'Y HELF! -
`;� �¢;_�:,<
:.:;�
� ��A'.
��� � �
.t.y
r-�
:.�
'+>� �.
;��
,: :
`�`-� :n_: ., - . . .
� ,,...�u,,..> , :.� „ :. . _ . . �;.4.. `_'`,;--
. .,,.. ; _, � _.
. . .. .,
� _,. 4 4 : -',: . .:a::
t_ .
�� �'`ti fs'. _.._ , - �
.�.�,qz�
Y���w�,*�� . . � . . .
L.E���Y. � . . .
..ngi ''".! � . . . .
X :�
.�, (
'��;�.�': . . . .
. . ..a�'�:��„ � . . . .
q ) .fi�..::, .
�sG��a
. �X�..� �� . � . .
�G� 1��.. . ..
��`.�-i . - .
``.
•`������i� . . - . . .
;�2�" �
U.��`
_� ��{: ` �
:,:x::,,
_. �_,
________
� . . ,,.. _:_._ .
�'q'�" � - ' -. � . � F�� � .F �'�J* ?��z�`� ��-$' �+����T i`Y�i l� �.
' � h t� Pp�j��*t'.l� `1'�rR �iF.. l�,...F���� J��{ � ..' .��.
� t . � �lA� y �'� � r �'�'�e
� �� q �� �R ��IlL�}.i�� 1 f �. �, r -�,�X�t 4I',i 5''���'S � ss� �fl �w l �.
.. •M ��'�'� �������+��``}' ���>:�- - -� �% .._. _ . �` '��a1��'-;±, -.u'.�':
,LCjitu fFs aP�ro?/v�/Q�
. 5-zl-�7�i�.¢Pfi'n9
xx��a��x����€�€�€um�€�€����€��€�€�tt[���€����t[�r�er�s�€�€x�€��������������a�w��■
PITRIN COIINTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COI+II4ISSIONERS _
MINUTES F'��">�`"
REGULAR MEETING APRIL 27TH 1987 k' ' .
PRESENT: GEORGE MADSEN, COLETTE PENNE, & FRED CROWLEY
• ■A{1�A`A�€1�1€1€D���€1€1€1�1�1�1€�!€H€�A€�ffi�III�€H�€ffi1€1€][�€1€���11�1��1��4f1B€HE�€1�1���€�?�l€][l��A€��A �
.;:�
At 9:15am, George Madsen opened the meeting. F"
6
�. .
::i SICKELS IAT SPLIT - DETAILED AND FINAL PLAT REVIEW - Francis E
;-:�! Krizmanich },
;:,a �.,
"=� This item was on the agenda for 9:o0am. Jane Ellen Hamilton, of
-�- _�-� Garfield & Hecht, representing Robert Shook, an adjacent property
owner, was in attendance. Richard Knezevich, representing
;,_j Sickels, and Fred Pierce, representing a prospective buyer of the
second lot being created in the split, arrived later, at 9:30,
����� both believing the later time to be when the item was scheduled.
'1
,y.;:# The BOCC had done a site inspection in the past on the parcel.
The staff was satisfied that the applicant had met all their
;g.n;� requirements. It was mentioned that a meeting of the minds had �
been reached between Sickels and the adjacent property owner
Martins, regarding a sanitary sewer line easement, and a draft of
,N� a written agreement was being drawn. It was understood that the
- agreement would have to be signed, prior to the recordation of
��•.# the plat, in order to meet the staff's conditions for approval. ; �
[This agreement will be signed prior to the Chair signing off on .
,•`;� the plat.]
,:!,-� There will be minor changes to the covenants on the property,
':;;� which will be reviewed by County Attorney Tom Smith, prior to
:.;�
recordation.
:'_� Regarding fire protection, which was one of the key concerns
'�; during the review process, it had been agreed with the applicant
to place a comment on the plat regarding the distance to the
� nearest fire hydrant (1200 ft.) and response times from the fire
a district.
� The applicant was being provided with literature regarding fire
protection.
� Colette mentioned that it wasn't unusual to require a closer M �;''
� hydrant to be installed, at the expense of the applicant. „ .��..
i
� �_
.`.v�a_.
.rMy �;
fY.
i BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 1 APRIL 27TfS, 1987 �;
.s; r._ .�
!
;� .
�
��� .. . .. .. . . � .. . � . . . . . , . . .. ' . _.. . . . .
, .n.: - .
'S`•• - . � ' .
_ __ c
r : �
:?z;„� -
`.'r%} -
_;'��ti�S •
=`n ` ��
___ ..�—�-�.....-.__.,.. �IMbWY�iii -- ....,a.,..,�--._
'��� � .. . . . . - ..
`Ly _ . ... . . .. .. , .... ... .
��Yb "
i+ i. � �..� � �x� hv{ �.p �._x,�+�'r;$,y��k- �$�y �5� ����.
� �j� � y�',��Y��,Y�f '�.� �i�'�� r'�f�wt r�l.`�� 'f, ��'?� 1 r
��.+Y�... ��`rI]�,':R.� i �. r� ,y� , � t .y;��,. a� "-�thf� 4'� ��}�'�a�.�`x����jt;y �'t` ,,� �ti�-:.
......FR..�.�ro�N. _.>�1:77�..��i�ra�.�4iFf?��`�4�.<'fi.at ��.� ���� %�.M�..,�_. • ��fl���fl'� .. .�tS�...t`�.y5:,
� ,:::.
Fred Crowley responded that he had just talked to the Fire
Marshal, and the nearest hydrant was inoperative at this time.
Aowever, the original 2" line was being upgraded to a 4" line,
which would improve the flow considerably.
Colette asked if the applicant wasn't originally going to connect E�.i:;
to city water. Rrizmanich explained that they discussed earlier
the possibility of tapping into Pitkin Green's water system, � �
which is a private system, but that they were denied access by �� '
Pitkin Green.
Crowley also mentioned the extraordinarily high cost currently
� for tap fees. He was constructing a duplex, and was looking at a
$20,000 tape fee ($10,000 per unit). He said that many people r "
i.-,:j were sinking wells, even in town, in order to avoid the fee. �
1 �
� The lot line had been moved 20ft., in response to a
t�':-;; recommendation from the Board. it was mentioned that the '
�
:;;� reference in the staff's report to the lot being non-conforming �' .
•...:4� was in error, and that a Code section allowed a "front setback°
'.-*� that would show conformity for the property.
�
.',� The trail easement was said to be along the Salvation Ditch.
No sprinklers for fire protection were being required for the "
•:YV?� home. It was mentioned that the inclusion of these sprinklers in
a new home might add only 1� to the construction costs.
Krizmanich said that these questions would be reviewed in the
� future during the Code revisions. He felt that Pitkin County
=,;z] should look at increasing their involvement with fire protection
i�'?; requirements. He mentioned Jefferson County, where people in '
� rural areas installed cisterns, with a couple thousand gallons of
'r'•�� water, which would afford at least an hour of protection.
">�� Madsen said that people shouldn't be required to install
��:.=� sprinklers in private homes, but should be given options from
;:;:� which to choose for fire protection.
, Crowley mentioned that only 14 calls this year had been received
for fires, whereas the usual figures run 250-275 calls per year.
�� .
:�-T And, only two of the fourteen calls had been structural fires. t
` � He said that improved fire codes, and fire extinguishers in the ;
��:� home, were contributing factors to the decrease in fires. ;
i
'?� Francis said that an item regarding the Red Mountain road
,� improvement district, which the applicant will join, is being �
included in the covenants.
'', I _;�'
'# Colette Penne moved that the Planning office draft a resolution '_
; with the conditions as outlined in the memorandum. „{,
-.� �
Jane Ellen Hamilton, an attorney with Garfield & Hecht, x°,�ua
.r,T -
. � BOARD OF COIIN'PY COMMISSIONERS 2 APRIL 27TH, 1987 _�.��;
�.
'+'� r,
.,,iS
?
� ']�"��.d�' .. . . . _ . . . ' ... .� . - � � � -. . . � � .. . _ . . � � .
`"i.. - .. � .
...;,'.. - . .
`
�-?::.':.� "
�4.w-
�:?,. .
i:,t�..�.k. ` �
�S; - .. .. .:.. . ..._.. � ..
� . . '. . . . ... .. ..... - � e� ,d.�.5�-r .Jr � v ixi�1, �'`�"ft{ ��� � �' t����i
- tt ,i � � �L .,f'�r����}✓'��Y�����~r'������'������1 '�t, '��..
. � + . '. . a. . � �f�o � Ls!��'t.. 7a�• �'� 'fl.�.! `I S� �S� 1.,,
�r� Y.. N�. t7�"���"SIi�Y�v �'i,, bt � y .�y`y ��t�. .f t r r'�'" tT�,c. 1?�;�.^a!�� .. ,.`
.��� ,�_��_�:a�sf.i�:�..�aE��MS.�E�.��Mt. d ��1+.4.«�..,�?'. _ ...�+���x�="...�t'*a'�:..'.
representing Robert Shook, entered a letter into the record. She
asked the Board to deny the application, based on non-compliance
with the condition set during general submission that the
applicant provide "adequate" fire protection, or require much ••-
more substantial fire protection measures, such as a water
storage tank, pump system, etc. [This letter is attached hereto 4� `
as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein as part of the public record ,
of these proceedings.] �� �
The City of Aspen Fire Marshal Wayne Vandemark had reviewed the -
property, and filed a memo dated April 7, 1957. He did not find
a substantial inadequacy regarding fire protection standards. ;
The Board decided that the circumstances regarding the threat of f•:.
fire were no greater than for other similar homes in the County, '
.� and as the Fire Marshal had not required any further mitigation, � ".
,^:.1 they would allow the lot split and approve the plat. „
� �
Fred Pierce and Richard Knezevich had arrived by this time, and
' - Pierce asked to be heard. Iie asked the Board to allow the
�: caretaker portion of square footage on one of the properties to
be figured as additional permitted sq. footage. As the property
was well within FAR (Floor Area Ratio) limits, and as Pierce
" `� explained that the actual footprint of the construction would not
'�•`_rt increase, the Board increased the figure to 7,500sq.ft., � -
- including the attached caretaker unit.
�'`� Colette amended her motion to include the 7,500 sq.ft., with the
;:��� condition that the footprint must not exceed the original limits Z
''•� approved for the property. (Total FAR permitted would be
-',.j increased to 7,500 sq.ft.)
rt
- Fred Crowley seconds. AIFMC
,� � INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION FEES AND EMERGENCY '
';�,.� RESOLIITION - Bob NeZson and Tom Dunlon 9:45am
;�� The representatives from Environmental Health asked the Board to
'`�=� approve increases in their application fee structure to a maximum -
.'�� level of $150 for a permit, $100 for a percolation test, and $60 `
for a loan inspection. [$150 for a permit is the State statutory ��
limit.] i
They provided a time/cost analysis for their staff, a survey of
; comparative rates for other counties, and other background
� infarmation. A copy of this four page packet is attached hereto -
� as Exhibit 2, and incorporated herein as part of the public
record.
� They asked the Board to approve the new fees on an emergency 5�' �:`�,,
! basis so the fees could increase immediately, and thus avoid a ��-'
i barrage of applications by people trying to beat the fee �'��+.�``.
; increase, during the public notice and hearing process. r:':�;,;;�' '�:
l ��t %1.
� BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONER5 3 APRIL 27TH� 1987
i F
� .
�
i
s�. ,. -
°,��:.,. .: . _
„� } ,� � - _ _
. . ���::�5_!�:�_ . .. �
`f.i- -
3i:� '
_ �
'S.";'
:.n"- '
>=i�'5:..::"rL�Y' � .
•.rt::
��;��^ �
:.��:: `
'1�1F NN� '
���` -�. ...._�.. .�._. . ..... .... . .. . :..� .._....._
:..
. , . Y �, ,,;� 6 . "'sQ
�S �rt'��� ,,x������``�r�,s'"°' �,�""•,�,� �' �,.�''i�
ti�;p���; }� � �r �� .�`�f k�'t��' •y,Z�-w7,�1':�`..�'� '� � S��?�I^i. �s�4
�_ •r'�,����'���"f�53����.N�,�� , ...��n�'� ..<.,_����.��,,mb"'.:��,�"s�.b.::` ���L � r ;
� � �s�:,� ., .
It was mentioned that there has been a substantial increase in
demand £or these services by the County. The existing structure
was created in 1981, during a much slower period of construction �
here in the County. Nelson said that the department had done 50 ��';" -
loan inspections already this year, which can be very time
consuming. It was also pointed out that the department had been � �
operating for some time with a deficit. ;�.
ic_;;::_-,.
Nelson mentioned that they get weekly requests from Redstotie, and
several requests have been received from Meredith. These
outlying areas result in a good deal of travel time for the
staff.
, As a condition of approving an emergency increase in fees, it was ;;ti;'�.;.
• agreed that in the event the BOCC, after hearing from the public, y
did not approve the increase, or the full increase, their �i.1•
department would rebate any difference in fees to applicants who ; �..
° � applied prior to final approval by the Board.
i
( Fred Crowley moved to accept the resolution at first reading, and
enact an emergency regulation repealing the old fees, and
; accepting the new ones.
; Colette seconds. -
,� As the issue would require at least a 30 day public notice
period, the matter was set for public hearing for Monday, June
` 9th, 1987.
y' At 10:o0am, a vote was taken on the motion. AIFMC
i
! .
� MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING WITH VOLUNTEER SEARCH AND RESCQE UNITS
Tom Smith �%
`s
� CCI was requesting a Memorandum of Understanding to be issued by
the County, if the County wished to cover these units, in order
that coverage for the Search and Rescue units be provided through
the Colorado Counties Casualty and Property Pool. In the
� alternative, the County could attempt to limit its liability by t.
� requiring evidence of other insurance, and indemnification & hold '�
a
harmless agreements. ��
The staff was recommending that the County issue the Memoranda of ;�
Understanding, for the Air Rescue unit and the Mountain Rescue
? unit.
� Also, for Board consideration, Smith explained that a serious gap +`°
; had surfaced in coverages, in that the insurance would not cover ��;'' "
� either unit in the event they crossed the County line. As it was , ,x•;`�"°c�._,;
quite possible to have an emergency that crossed the line, and/or ,x' f``
' the County's units might be called upon to help a neighboring �?r
, ��,:��.:
j BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 APRIL 27Tfi, 1987 t `;;4 .�:
'*:
i F .
�
. �
���. -..
. _ , � _ , .
iy, ....^ . .. . .. . �.'. .� '. .�'..�.. . . . � . .. .'.. . .. . . . ..�.
. 1 _ _
t , t
- �i�'�)�r I i
...n;=; _ . .
+
�� N;.
�`f;�_:i'`> „ . . .
-µ,ti: w .
- � �
,�:
:.,>-
` :;,.. . ,
....... ...... .
��yp.y.,Tr- _ . ..... .... .. . : .. . ...-, . . .. . . . . � .�,
'�'�/''.. . . . i .
.. > k���+ '��q'ry � �s��� � �, �:+t
� q' 17 a � .�. 4 a'�"y� c� ,n��sY.�"�°I- d ' tl.}'��3
, �� � 1y' t '` ,.q ., w� ,d�� '�,,Ya�' 4°(3`c.. '^�fey. ��+'�*�'4 �y. ' �; q
... � .�_..u� . .i�.� 1:�1ti���• .... . t�� n�' _. . , Y - ��'1'�'�.♦ AS��. �l k��Rli'• 11,�F�
?2^ �Y.� . � '�- .
County in an emergency, this was of concern. He said that he had
sent a letter to the boards of directors of both pools, to �
address this issue. In the interim, there would be a problem in
assigning our people to rescues outside the County.
Colette asked if the costs would be prohibitive to the rescue
units to provide their own coverage. Smith explained that as the -
County was already paying into the pool, and as the rescue
workers were County employees under the broad definition of such
status, including them would allow them to avoid a double payment ` -
.� of premiums. [They are currently paying into their own Workmen's
Comp., for instance.7
, The staff's feeling is that these people perform an important �
;� community service, and should be covered by the County. �
F1;'.'�t..
" Colette ascertained that the inciusion would not increase the i`�:,
;: i premiums at this time. She further inquired, in the event of a j:r''•
•� lar e claim or claims i£ the "
9 , premiwns mighC not go up
� dramatically. Smith said that the losses suffered by the pool in
�+ this area had been under projeated losses, but that it would be
� hard to predict preaisely how much a premium might increase in
the event of substantial claims. He felt it would depend on the '
statistics from other members of the pool, etc. t
.� - -
The insurance was to cover our people performing the rescue work,
'�'� as well as damage or injury to third parties. �.
F��
� Colette moved to approve the memoranda. Fred Crowley seconds.
'= AIFMC
,�
�� RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS: •
_ `�
''� MINUTES
i'i
,,� The members made some minor corrections to the minutes of 3-30-
_� 87, and 4-13-87. With the changes, the minutes were approved. �
'� Fred Crowley moved to approve the minutes. Colette Penne ,
seconds. AIFMC `
�
-g }„_
�� SECOND READING - 1986 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS - Lvnn Dunlop
E 10:15am ��.
� Lynn Dunlop e�cplained some changes to the supplemental budget, �}
including an omission regarding the inspection phase of the '
a airport entrance project, originally expected to run $24,735. � =�
� With some minor savings, the correct figure is $23,569. �v,=4,�'.
� ,
i Also, some in-house labor costs and some non-construction costs � + '�
� were determined to be "grant ineligible,�� and thus result in �`^'.1
� $14,970 additional for the budget. Together, these ad@itional `��
� costs run $38,539. � �,�,
� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 ApRIL 27Tfi, 1987 L��•'
.`� � .�
-`�
�
��:� _ - � . _..
. H_:, .
�:': .;
s..... .:
�..l;:���" . . ( .
��,):�::.�' ' .
� •
Y'YR Fi.
�':s"' ��;3:', .
'.::
,�'*,i1+_. ` ' � .
Y���
.. . .... _ _ . . ... . .. , ., . _ _.._ ' � . . WL �r s k z �r a� .��, t•��S L ,
�tKa r �
� �s���� K�,�{,���;�.�:3,;,;�%`,,�'��'��,�` ��� �"�
� �R�1 4?�� � �j'. ��� .j� F'� �" .'� t Y �•�� �`�, �i���'4:'��� r����� yd °1�
... . .. t' � f N S.]{(j�_ °�����},I N� l� ���'�'i K ��.2��y��' l.'�. -.��'�.
..��..�.r.w�� . .•Y :�� '�i �`� �'��,.�. � '� ,. . _ . _ � - �AC.J�WWC.'�'�`�'ii!.:-.
w 1 r �.� .)�,. _. .. W.'v �. .. . . . .
A final accounting of the 1986 year end position will be made at
the joint meeting scheduled for May 5, 1987, with the FAB �
(rescheduled from April 28, 1987). ">''.�:•- �_
s»-.;;w�::.�.
As Colorado statutes mandate governmental expenditures not to �};``�°•:;-`
exceed appropriated budgets, the staff recommended approval of �ti`-?.. ,�;
the resolution. I��',' :::
Also, i,ynn Dunlop covered some zero-cost programs. She discussed
the Roaring Fork at Old Snowmass Hridge grant, as well as a
• reallocation of an item involving an administrative vehicle,
being taken out of the central service department for accounting
purposes, and being handled within the fleet management budget. <�
:it
'• Lynn reviewed several technical matters regarding the budget for ��:..'.
' the Board, and responded to several questions from Madsen, �
�•.
. clarifying some of the figures.
-r;
i Fred Crowley made a motion to approve the resolution. Colette �'
seconds. AIFMC
Lynn mentioned that a third reading would be held at 11:30am the
following day, at a special meeting. This was necessary due to
�! the increase in expenditures since the earlier draft budget
� supplement.
Also, she reminded the Board of the May Sth joint meeting with
FAB.
i
'� ASPEN GROCERY - 3.2 BEER TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - Rim Whitestone
i �/ '
I
� The license will now be in the names of William David and May
; Elaine McBroom, transferring from John W. Reese in the name of
i the Grocery.
1 Fred Crowley moved approval. Colette seconds. AIFMC
I
� WILDFIRE SIIPPRESSION FOREST SERVICL - Bob Braudis t
i.:,
� Contract with the US Forest Service - The item involved an "air
attack" capability [rapidly deployed air retardant suppression]
regarding brush and wildfires, outside of recognized fire ,c .
districts. Braudis was recommending approval of a contract that
! would distribute the costs of initial suppression of such fires •.; :;
between the State and the County on a sliding scale. [CUrrently,
all such costs are borne by the County, until the fire reaches t.
sufficient proportions to qualify for financial assistance under � :
the State Emergency Fire Fund.] �*, . �,r'.
j ��- .
` Fred Crowley moved approval. Colette seconds. AIFMC �
j . `�;��.`
�, �;; -
• BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 6 APRIL 27TIi, 1987 = �;
I
� _..
r'.e�'�:. ',
�::> - -
_ �
..`i;'.'i:',:r`;' ,
,
�,t .��:..,
=:�y:- , ^ ,
=tii;:-:'`.
� —
_.. �.,...r., � �.,.���
:::,
�'�, .:
�
� _,. ._.... . . .. . _ . . ., . _.__ . .,.
}"��:
��,,s�s�,i�`-�,'�t' �'�`K, �� ���f,�+f
(r�,,.�:... M .� i s.�+� �p,.ltt�,T �. �}.. . ���. � x'S�t�:.�~fi�i�� 4Y� 47y��.��. {`�d`;��,�I �j.� .V., i.���
� �+r�.'������.'�ioAS�.d���;���5�..;A�. . , -�S�r�����'2+.ei'S�M.:�� ■�������:.�,�
LANDING FEES/F[TEL FIAWAGE FEES INCREASE - Ed Thurmond 10:30am
Ed mentioned that the staff was attempting to generate additional
revenues, particularly to reach a level where matching funds are `;� �
made available from the FAA, regarding the acquisition of the ��:'i� -
Paepcke Ranch. _
7
The staff was proposing: -
Commercial landing fees: An increase from $ .65 per 1,000 lbs.
gross landing weight, to $1.55 per thousand lbs. �'
i
Non-revenue landing fees: From $ .55 per 1,000 to $ .65 per
thousand, or minimum $3.00 per landing.
1;'•'i.
j Landing fee increases require a Code Amendment, and therefore, a ,
� 30 day notice and a public hearing. ; `
3
.. : Fuel flowage to increase from $ .10 per gallon to $ .15 per � 1'
' gallon. w
i �.
� Thurmond covered the current and projected revenues of these �
� items. He mentioned that new revenue sources will be brought to r
` the attention of the BOCC within a few weeks. � ._
; �
'i The Agenda Item Summary was incorrect in recommending adoption of
r
,.� Alternative #1, and instead, the staff was recommending �
Alternative $2.
. �
� ,
� Thurmond mentioned that although the County could approve the
�# portions other than the landing fees without public hearing, it �
iwas their practice to handle this via public notice and hearing,
as a matter of public information. Thus, both items were being `
� handled concurrently.
� Thurmond expressed his feelings that fuel flowage was a more
i
� simple means of collecting revenues than via GA landing fees. He
explained some af the difficulties in collecting these, both at
Denver's Stapleton Airport, as well as at our own airport.
t
� Cliff Runge of the ABO said that the 15 cent flowage fee would be l ``
triple the amount charged at many comparable airports. If we
y were going to charge these flowage fees, he asked the BOCC to
provide a guarantee that no landinq £ees would be charged in the
" future. Also, he wanted to be able to show pilots that a
9 commitment had been made to benefit their operations directly, by � ;=,
- way of improved facilities at the airport.
� Thurmond discussed "cost-centered accounting" that would provide, :J � t�
� for example, a direct correlation between the payments made by ' ..!�t,�
, GA, and benefits provided them via improved facilities. _';`'-;y�"?,:
i `' ',�-�iil-`�
� :"t"":.:.
N:��,fl
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 APRIL 27TH 1987 .� �
� . ! �:
I �.
i
�
'��. . _ , . ... - . _ , -.
. ��;:`:,t. .
_:,;�,.;�:,
`i'",;.�. - - .
- '
.,iy..`. , �
„g:";„;;:,,,:a;��.i.; -
- �`} .
="c ,` �
_�._ _______ ---_. _ .
_ __ __,� _
�"� .,
. �
'�' .. ,.. ._. , . .. . . . . :. . .._ .
r.
F�i; •
�.{�.��. {%�� ��°��ff�'"'��� ��'�l A't s1,�1 1
.:�Y �� 1!y�`-�' i. �1G�y� :• X � . ..�: �-.�,; i'�i�,i�.'�1-A��`���'� �� -ti�i���`b�.'��� `�'f 3�,`) �3`+�..=x
,.. 'r .e'f '�' :a3.�_ T���!5�...�s ��l ' a . !S 7,7 r `L31�
�'� a�i,.'��sLt�.9��� . . '�`�w�, t,J.
Thurmond mentioned that the BOCC had done a site inspection of
the facility, and felt that improvements should be made, for .
instance in the parking lot used mostly by GA, though there were
some budget constraints.
..;.}._
Penne expressed some concern that the increased flowage fee might ""'�""�
result in less, and not more, revenues for the airport, if the `
� pilots fill up elsewhere.
�..``�.
4�:.. '
She explained that no guarantee could be made regarding landing � � _
fees in the future, but she said that she hoped that the GA
� facilities could be improved in tandem with the commercial
aviation improvements and the general airport expansion project.
�:>� :
.I Fred Crowley suggested that the Board approve the item, but that ti;' :.
Thurmond and Runge could keep a close watch on how the increase t�
`� affects GA business at the airport. In the event the measnre has ?`!
� r.:.
a substantial negative impact, a change could be made in the �
`' � future regarding the fees.
_y � � `
;I Penne said that landing fees were not, in her view, desirable.
jThis measure may be a workable alternative. t
�
; Runge asked that the resolution be amended to reflect the Board's �•; ,
•:� general feeling at the meeting that GA landing fees were not k
,:-� going to be imposed. Madsen explained that the Board present at �,
the meeting could not guarantee the future action of the Boa:d
regarding GA landing fees.
i �.
�� Penne also expressed her feelinq that the commercial landing fee
•;� increase was very substantial, and wondered how the rates
j compared to other facilities. Srie asked Thurmond if the 4: ,
commercial airlines were going to react strongly to the increase. �
;� He answered that there would be some resistance to any increase
`j in fees. He said that the fees at other airports were directly
. � related to the level of development at the fac3lity. �
Colette Penne made a motion to approve the resolution, with the
� proviso that a period of time be designated as a test of these `
�� new fees, and that during that test period, no GA landing fees �c_
;
would be imposed. Fred Crowley seconds.
� The duration of the test period was discussed. It was agreed not -�
to assign a specific date, other than "through the summer
� season." `� .
\
: Madsen wanted to know definitely whether the County could impose ' �
: weekend landing fees, as a disincentive to traffic. �-:c;�::_,
' N;'
� Thurmond answered that the FAA was looking for even-handed '�+r,'
treatment of GA and commercial airlines. Further, Thurmond ";;;;;� °
� suggested that the FAA would not look kindly on a disincentive ��
� �t �t
j BOARD OF COIINTY COMM'ISSIONERS 8 APRIL 27TH 1987 �v, �'
' �µ��'i
:� f��
� i.
�
�'�c�..� -_: , _ : -
cc�� __ . . . . . . . -�. . . .
:_�;;`- - � ..
i'ti:'�";:��' .
- ,` �►
..I __ �.' '�_ . ._�._._�.....-...»..n..-.___....
n11YY - —' _ _'_— .— . ,..
�� � . � .. .. .. . .�... .:--,... � .. .. . . . .
� ! ' - . .. . . .P " �.y .Xr ��� �r .:'� �.��,�}�r�f .-
� � � �,^�` �� '� ; � � � �
.i+f��� '+�y�- . ;��"�r �, �� �'� . ..,TI i`1��I�� � ,.�V9� ��'Iv�.�m�"Fj�+f�' �1 a` s��#
. , . F
.. ='����.��b�j��7���r��,.��. ;� ���:��". �' .3 .��t ��r.,'� > .. .
� ,
c ' �^�e}-
fee structure. He said that if the fee is imposed to restrict or
deter people from utilizing the airport, it is discriminatory.
Madsen pointed out that even if it were not strictly illegal, the �.,��-
County had to concern itself with FAA financial participations. �. -
He made it clear that he was not advocating a large landing fee,
but onl that man �..�,'�
y y people have inquired with him regarding this.
It was mentioned that a $50 or $100 fee was the high end for �;,
landing fees, anywhere in the countxy. $50 was mentioned as the -
� fee for Washington-Dulles, considered one of the most expensive.
."� `
Madsen suggested that a sign be erected at the GA terminal, that
would let pilots know the projected improvements scheduled for �
the facilit Thurmond and Run e mentioned the �
y- g publishing of a ;
_ memo and possible newsletters to keep the pilots current with �
developments affecting them. �
i� - Penne said that Runge could pass along the Board's feeling that •
"-� the prohibition of landing feas for the s�mmer, does not indicate
' '�"'. the intention of imposing suah fees in the fall. If the new
�`"1 program is successful, it could be considered as in lieu of
�:;� landing fees.
,:,
� At 10:55am, a vote Was taken on the motion. AIFMC
�`.?�7 CHILD PROTECTION AWARENESS WEEK - Mike Schultz
�:M� ,
`-� Crowley moved approval of the resolution as written. Colette
seconds.
;�;:i
� � Schultz shared child abuse statistics with the Board. He said
'""� that there were 15 cases of physical abuse reported in 1986; 20
;,',,; cases of neglect; and 13 cases of sexual abuse in the County.
,,`-� Crowley asked for Schultz�s estimate of how many cases were
reported, vs, unreported. Schultz thought that 25-30$ of the
,�-;�;!.� cases were reported. � :
The figures on sexual assault were coming in substantially higher
;`�� for 1987, thouqh the physical abuse number appears to be t
='-� decreasing. Schultz explained that few cases involved street
--:�� assaults or abduations, etc. The cases generated from within the
family, or from people known to the family.
..� He said that Pitkin County will likely be mandated to have a
child protection team. (Pitkin County has had one since 1979).
The public awareness generated, at the minimum, increases the
reporting percentages. �;,-:..���;�,
He mentioned that there were private contribut.ions, and letters �':`
J are sent to thank the contributors. There are many restrictions s'�i,`
1 on how social service funds can be spent. The private funds �C�i'"'`
tq� ,
:� ,:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 ApRIL 27TB, 1987 -*�:' -+:.
�
:1 £
,.-,� "
�+� . •-
. ,e�� `
_.�,r-`e;':_
a°-'„ .
. �
.. •;!s�,,;�=, .
�
}G,-:•h
����
..:�jY-�. ' .
�.;.i%! 1.
-v'f'_'�_�e� •
.;r. ` s
?���Jyy ,
M .... _ _. ,..< <.�._.
5... . . . . L ,..1� �-t. � !Y'.'� '.\�� .y:
;� �y°�' �� �+��,�,'.
. . , c�{ ��.. ��.b.': �.r ti�� .
; � Y' � ,'• "�". ,}.. *� � � '��� � ,.
-,�� � � � .�s �E�Y,h1
� y!. . y�,.(,
. .. �t ti . . .�x.,.. , . . �. . �i ':��s?'1. . .. . . . �r�:�{:.'A� .
allow some latitude. For instance, a family experiencing severe
financial problems can be aided, while the department works with
the family regarding child abuse. ;,•-.
j;,, .
Schultz gave the names of the people involved with the Child �'a -
Protection Team to the Board. He discussed the actions and
responsibilities of the team, and explained some of the work they --
do. He described the function and purpose of guardians ad litem,
r mentioning that 13 had been specially trained for this duty. •
�•�� At ile00am, a vote was taken on the motion. AIFMC
`� i The meeting was adjourned at 11:05am, and reconvened in executive
i session after a brief break.
s4��,
'��;i,;
Respectfully submitted,
� - �•��.
. -� •:4''' G� � / J �
:�K.';,; David Aighland,
S Deputy County Clerk
-,1�1
'��
�?sx,
.�,
•.,-��� k-
'y��
,'s�w a
+
,,,� f
!
{'%�� F t
�
`'v '`w.,i
,4,,'�s:
3�;.
�F�.�'
�::-:�;:
�;;r.�.''�' .'
� . `n�ic:.'.
':)c
•:•;,:�� BOARD OF COUNTY COM(iiSSIONERS 10 APRIL 27TH, 1987
^k
r�i.
rv.�
�" ���{� . �. .. �
• � w����s� � ._ ., .. . . . ' '4. . . .. ,,. . . ... -. , . .. ._ . .
�_p�.%�?' . . . .
}b�ti�� .. . . .
..Y'` .:t�5._. . . . . _ . .
._1.' .
1°�'� 4�"rz�- � . � . . . . .
�Y�; � ... . . .
•���.� � . . ' ..
+.�.� . �
����L+. _ _
i,� h t
-•1���.��. � ..
��Y •
:;p�'i�Y�� ` r . .
�� ,.. _.._. • . _ _..,
- .. .. �
. , ._ . ._. . . . ... . ... .. _. .. .
p'iJ 4 ' � � . .
7 � ` � �l �
.A<� .�� � ��.. i� . R ���'�
W ,T T � � "' 4 �:r � � '� . , �
r'. , �.. o�� , � ��i',o4. ' � ` �- '.�'. �3 f'.":�� bJoi.i ,:�'�`'"�' �• �i ,�;*,r�1y �..
,�j� -{, tC� ` S #�,
. �.,,.. .�•,;r.�,. . ,fG��U��N��7����:s�'�?�..«�F',:F;..:� .... .. �.:�ftx4..ai�.• ..15� . 'T..i'�il��ti�-°�y�
� �a,V"r`'�':w�..,
�1�s�'��-',�+.�^."�'"'��"v::.'�.r3E�w.°i'.W�.°'r�.� -x_x�'iY��.'.*�'� �
► �
� '— 04-27-87.BOC Exhibit 1 —
RONALD GARp1ELD• GARFIELD & �EGHT� P.G. I
TELEPHONE ' �
� ANDREW V.HECifC++ A7TORNEYS AT LAW (3p3)925.(q36
WILLIpM K.GUFST,P.C.••• VICCORIAN SQUARE B(JILDING TE�EroP�� �
. � (303)925-3008 ;^��.
lEREMY M.B6RNSTEIN 6Dl EAST HYMAN AVENUE CABLE AD➢RESS ^'r;9�;t.�-,�
: JANE ELLEN NAMI4TON ASPEN. COLA$ADO Slfill �C'A��� ��-��'�'
. •.w.aAxewn ..� �
New Yak Bv
••dao Wsit4A n ..
D4virt o!Calwi6i�8r ' L
•••Jb�dnined b � ::(/".
Neb�•"�T""B" April 27, 1987 �: -
� ` i:;
BOARD Of C0.COA�M'R'S � �'�-��' .
� soard of County commissioners Pli'KIN COL'�TY ��,
� 506 East Main Street Public Fkarinq Expibiis ' s� � '
� Aspen, Co 81611 Date; '� '�`�`
;,t�;...,..
,�, a.
RE: Sickels Lot split Subject: �;,�-.,�.
�4`I .
1 Exh.No. r�s�ca�r :� `
Ladies & Gentlemen: !, ;
�
� We represent Robert Shook who owns a home adjacent to the
proposed Sickels Lot Split property. This letter summarizes the
very important concerns Mr. Shook has regarding the adequacy of
. � fire protection which will exist should the development of the
� Sickels property be approved as proposed in Sickels' current
submission. We believe that the Sickels lot split submission � �
j should be disapproved by the Board because the amount of fire
� protection currently available ta the Sickels property is
i inadequate and therefore the development of the Sickels lot poses
ia real threat to the lives and property of adjacent landowners
� like Mr. Shook.
i
I The Fire Marshall, Wayne L. Vandemark, informed ns that the
I fire hydrant nearest the Sickels property is located
approximately 1,250 feet from the property and therefore relays
� would have to be set up to get water from the hydrant to the
ihomes on the Sickels property in the event of a fire. The qrade
� of the road up which the fire hoses would travel is 58.
i Therefore, due to the distance water would have to travel and the t
stee ness of the ''F
p grade up which the water would have to be
I pumped, the Fire Marshall estimated that under the best of ;,y� �'
� conditions it would take a full 10 minutes from the firefighters' :�
� arrival at the fire before water could aetually reach the fire.
As the Fire Marshall stated, a home could burn to its foundation
by the time the firefighters were able to begin fighting the
fire.
A home on the Sickels property may be built as close as 30 `� � '�
feet from the Mr_ Shook's home, for the minimum side yard setback �� .�i-�t'
in this area is 15 feet. Therefore, Mr. Shook has a very real �"�4'`�"'�`
fear that b the time firefi hters were able to be in fi htin a �""C��'
Y B 4� 9 4 ''.�i:'.
fire on the home on the Sickels property close to him, the fire +'''•��`'
could spread to Mr. Shook's home, endanqering the lives of his ' t =�A .
i � . �.
i �,..
1
s ,q:
� . , �
� . � :.::._ .��;� ...�. _. �
, _� _,..,. �
5t � �... _. , _ _ .
�t �
:,���:�
'�r'- ;YY.. . . � � .
.5,4�:'�': _ � , t' .
i� y'�y �
rl�'w.�i.S�,"'�:G�=� , . . �
F��`�a f'i' � ' � . .
s
d i"
r`"�-+�.,,t� .
:C�an.F�A�.?`��: .
.`aF^�4'��T .
4:•ti�i�.. «
:15.a.�3`_
�:'j Y.ii•�'�t'•' � �� . .
�'.L:
��y:. � � .. - ' .. . � ..... . .. . ........ -' '. _ .. . , . . . ' . - ..-. ,
� ' a' �:.p ' � - e,i}}.� � ..
E (i� .�+ ) �•.�.(�,.�n �Y.L�ff, �y�� �+��• :� � {{'��Yf'1 �
. . �y,.:a���'�h`9'e� 4���,� .�e�l�rNL��r.` �,i �� �.��...� .. �� ,_ JS �� ����.•� ��Y. . ' �Nb'r ).,. .
ew�c71C ".}s�
.. � ti.
f�;%:
� GARFIELD & HEGHT, P.G.
Board of County Commissioners ' : -
- April 27, 1987
Page -2- �:.Y.
, �y.;
£amily and endangering his hame. This risk exists both during
� construction and once the home is completed. •'
� %.: '
?i`� The Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission approved ',
the Sickels Lot Sp2it, after considering the above factors, which
we presented to the Commission, because the Fire Marshall, in his � .,
,� memo to the Planning Office, did not state that the fire
protection available on the Sickels property was "inadequate" and
' the Commission stated they were not qualified to determine what � ',
� ,.;t� constitutes "adequate" fire protection. The Fire Marshall did �,
:�t not say the fire protection was adequate he merely summarized in �.,•.
�r�a his memo the amount of protection the current fire hydrant system
could offer. A notation on the final plat of the Sickels
���� property would likely be insufficient to warn purchasers of the
�`e� homes proposed to be built on the property of the poor quality of
the available tire protection. We believe that, in liqht of the
:,�:� weaknesses in the current available protection, as summarized _
�� above, in order for fire protection on the Sickels property to be
��,'�C�;;�. adequate, it should be supplemented by a private fire hydrant on
�ti�' the Sickels property or by a private well with a storage tank and
=;;3'�� pump, if necessaxy, to supplement the available fire protection 4i
'�'��' system.
�:�:�
z��y':.
�_•»..; At this stage of the review of_ the Sickels Lot Split
,�,�.� Submission, the Board may only approve those submissions which ,
e:e:x: are in conformance with the provisions of the Pitkin County Land i
°''-� Use Code. We believe that the Sickels Lot Split Submission does E `��
.:-5,'t�
;:_�^•�• not conform with the Code because it violates Policy 2-6 for
'C�t�`- theze is not "adequate evidence that a water supply of adequate
"�"� ualit uantit ressure and de endabilit to rovide for
9 Y, 8 Y. P P y... p
�'' protaction from fire." The provisions of the Code apply equally
: to all property owners in Pitkin County, and to allow the Sickels
���� property to be developed without full compliance with the Code
_ would be to allow an unfair application of the Code to the �
_ Sickels property. We therefore believe that the submission
�`'' requesting approval of a lot split on the Sickels property should � . '
~�'�'�' be disapproved by this Board, or, alternatively, the submission
f''�`>�:� should be remanded to the applicant so that the applicant may
'' prepare a fire protection plan for submission which is in �'
�'� �'.:�.
- .;;k,;:
#g-7�::�;
,_.r.��r ."ti`:'�.
;;� �.
�rj
ri��:�':�'
'7i�
�FC „j
L,w:•:,r
^ -a::.`�
F «�
Ary�y��
� y}�+.r}p....-.,.._ ..::...:�.. .......�.J !�-.. �... .. . � .. . .. . ... ......�. . -. .
��.�...., . . �.;... 5 -<,:. , -. .
....:�, p:_:�..',.'
`y�"ti3 L.:. . ..._... . . � ._. _ . .. '. .. ..�'�`/.
. ,i�";`�,�,:;. .
..�,.�i;;x+.,:-
xc,�:.'
�.,:"
tF ��> �._ ' � � �� .
k e'a, ,
3:5,,. .
.�''-�+��t ; � � �
}�`''w�
.�.�N j,
C a �t+t`..,.%. ' .
"`ru:j`y',li
,:���'
�+�.i�: �
'�,"�» �' •
.�,���k$ � �� •
.._ . _.... .,. .,_ ... . ..�__ .. , . ._
� , •
� , _ , 4 �, ,,: �s� � ti,;
�°� �t ' a �, . <��
-�. -�:" � �lD+F' '�'; s-� ' ,. `: a �,.i`„{�.,1
.�a n y . . � ��:��.:� . - � �`i.�i��1.
.�... . . _ . .. . . ., i.
. ♦ '
� GARFIELD & HEGHT, P.G.
`:�
,,�
� �
� Board of County Commissioners .
� -
� April 27, 1987
Page -3- "
conformance with the provisions of the Code, £or there is
currently insufficient evidence presented by the applicant to
demonstrate compliance with Policy 2-6 of the Code.
;a?'`I
; Very truly yours,
r,�„�s=� GARFIELD & HECHT, P_C.
�%' ����q���:lC�
� �,-" � ne Ellen Hamilton
:rA � -
`�,;•;� JEH/mms =
:'��: 1,. _
� `::'s?`b~ � . . .. I .
y,, I
. . �`�4', . . . ..
-"k�
�`i
,'�:,.,�{
..y�`� "•
;{� I:.-;�.
_. �;, �
s� i
�� �
� 3 '
�r' S a
. ��..X� .. .
q:v2'
. :�"�'«�t�r . .
-P'.... . . .
, `y,' ;,
, �T��,�. � �'=].;.
. 'r_.55':� - �!'a'�I
'o'::�.;� . . ' . .��.
`1�.�,.
. , ' .��! � � sh.,
,,"Nk�j
���
. . � i��� - . � -
'�
...i:.�,S, . - .
' F-i
;n��
. . .,:1�r: .
wa
�
�Y
�, �
. �� 0.�,` '. �- �.� e,__� '�•�+°�.�`.�.`..4.A�...�.'1.c�..,,.a,rY.sw�'S.Gw.W..4*i'.:W.x�dS.:e��F's/ttbb+-�4'u,.v=i�K.S,7 ���+W.:S''i�x .:A..,,iic-,^,..1.x ib.:^:a�wv,l,,.kz%il`.4.isl.'e4..i,t�:.,..,:
' . � ��.\ � . � ... � . . . . . � . .
. �SA ,i . . , .. � ' � - ' . . � .
� "� �.r , j .
rps,'�'y'.�: . �
�����,,`t : � \
s��� _ . .
�;., _
:5 .
�,��"
;���S`� .. . ,
x
�
;� � � � �
;:�i>-��.
„::i,:,.. , ”
,,�'�. . .. .... _..
<
� , A ��
, . .; f �jc�� . Y� � �v�E'K�+ t � ;r*� `� ,.
, . r M K j�+�k�l �4�'Ug '�e s�f��� �
a5�1 ' '. S - c .y. -,f,,'t+ �{� u'V`f-� S f't �...� io- a��i t i 1��.
:.if �1� „f7�? f V;���:�t�4���i-'r � S�� � .� rZ'y"�5 >x �'h� .� �Nt }��1 j a... � t
W'�„ � �y y. ,�g 3 s 4,"� �.�� ;+6 ��_ S. ) 7"t'i 4 F �i�w`� � ..� w� :
.� �'�1,��,..,. '����i�r�`�.`�,���t'a.��'�in:';�.. } . �,.��`�r:+�vti�^�-cu��. '�" . .,. . .,
r ! • ASPEN+PITKIN
. ENVIRONMENTAL HEA�TH OEPARTMENT
- 04-27-87,BOC Exhibit 2 -
AGENDA ITEM SDNl�ARY
1:. .
To: Board of County Commissioners
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA DATE: April 27, 1987 t. .
�
From: Bob Nelson, Environmental Health
Re: Individual Sewage System Application Fees _ .
� lst Reading and Emecgency Resolution gOARD�F C0. CQMM'R'S '
i:
Agency Head Signature: PIl'it�N C01k�3�fY
Public Hearin�Exhibits 'V
'� ____________________________________________=�te.====________-_ `
° � STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR ITEM: Bob Nelson Subjeci: 1��""�•E7���L
?.i
,. Exh.No.
::t�
�''I DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: The attached resolution is an adjustiment
- . in the tegulations in the methods of establishing app�ication
fees and sets the amount aharged for sewage dispo§al permits.
_ Cuziently the fee structure is specifiec3 in the regulations,
� although the State Statute allows it to be set based on the
���'� previous years cost of conducting the on-site wastewater disposal
:;�� program. The current fee structure� established within the
regulation was set in 1981. Since then, until last year, the
'_.iamount of wotfc had temained faicly constant with the number of
;_.� permit applications staying below fifty a year and the number of
requests for bank loans and use permits varying from fifteen to
twenty £ive. The analysis of staff time costs for these services
� • in 1984 and 1985 was within an acceptable range of about &3000 .
,,,<:i pec year moLe than the =evenues colleated (omitting vehicle
,� operations costs). In 1986, however, the difference was� about
&22,000 between the amount of revenue and the cost of providing
the services to this program, including a calculation for vehicle
�:G operating costs.
''r�: ALTERNATIVES: This is a pcogram which provides a public service,
but which cannot continue to operate with the curient level of
fees and charges for loan inspections. The options appear to
'��� this department to increase fees or to cut back services. Under
State statute, the county is obligated to continue to provide the
regulatory aspects of the program. There is appaYeatly no �� �
potential £oc the ptivate sectoc to furnish services, such as the
loan inspections, not mandated by State law, effectfvely. 1.;:��.;.`
RECOMMENDED STAFF ACTION: This department recommends that you ';`:; ;.�
adopt the resolution repealing the existinq the fee structure, ��.-�
enact amendments which allow the Board to set the fees on an ��,
` annual basis based on the cost of the secvices necessary to �., �'���
; conduct the individual sewage disposal system p=ogsam, and s;,,r
establish the application fee struature at the maximum level of �=�*�
� 5�0.00 for a permit, 5100.00 for a percolation test, and 560.00 `� � '
:>j for a loan i r--�------ �� `.
i '• F
9:' '13p South Gale�a SCreee Aspan�Colcrado 696'11 3031925-2a20 '
�
;�:3'pu.,i--�F,Si-.. _. . .. - . �
�
` _
.�'f' ... .. . . _, . . �
�zr�,:.:� � .
. i � �t; �r �� rF�'S�t � �. � �'Y� ^,,
r�`� a r,���',�n rz� �'�. ��� � y 4j � y 1�?VS����t+�? � �i,'3 i t�>t���i �1���.t s
' +M ` '}•+``� '�: i "�'}Nt�I''''it •�f� a � ` -:�' '�r.�<P r�fcr�5� ,i.�Jl.ti�.�y�ia j�J"j��ti'r'� \
.. .. �.,,,'�' f_ '�)� �'��e,. x �k�� �'ll%�::...�..�`" .�r�i.,�r r Y i�. `��n���� �•�u � �
-... . . �r
... .. .a.�.�..:,=a. '* _ .
�.. -�z.r�:��,.n-> ,.r °a'�.�.•�F'!ep���,..�a�5.;1 !� ' s
.. . ._. ,.�.sw:..._....._,.... .
� � ASPEN*PITKIN
- ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D 0 M �i ._
�;;';
i;'; .
To: Board o£ County Commissioners j�
John Eldert, County Manager �� �, / : '
7 Tom Smith, County Attorney �X�I13�"�
' Ftom: Bob Nelson, Environmental Nealth�
�
# Re: Individual Sewage System Application Fees �
Aate: April 22, 1987 ��
F. , .i Agency Head Signature: '��
'"� _____________________________________________________°__-______-_
-"3
!�°°� PURPOSE: This memorandum is intended to provide some backgtound
,,i
and cost analysis on the amount of staff time and budget from the
:;;'�� department which is beinq allocated to the individaal sewage
+;;.:1 disposal program.
1
DISCUSSIQN: In 1986, this department =eceived 66 septic system
°;,'�;:;� permit applications and 97 loan inspection requests. Over 50 „
�;. �� hours wece spent in performing soil tests for on-site septic `
systems, 200 hours perforraing construction inspections and 330
hours spent traveling (about 10,500 miles) . In addition, to
,,;;%� conduct loan inspections, the depa=tment inspected and sampled 83 -
,`� water systems. The costs of conducting this progcam and provid-
ing the loan inspection program have dramatically increased over
=� the amount of cevenue collected, primarily, we think, because low
interest rates increased five times the number of requests for
our loan inspection secvice of certi£ication reports to the
,;,r',; len8ing institutions. Last year we estimate that expenses for
:j� inspectioa time, travel, zeports, con£e�ences and samples
exceeded 533,000 while revenues were only 510,850. The new fee
schedule proposed is similar ta that used in other counties which
,_� have increased fees on more than ane occasion to cover operating '
expenses. This action is provided for and allowed under 25-10-
, i_� 106(1) (a) of the Colorado Revised Statutes. _
ia.'. .
RECOMMENDATION: It has hecome obvious to continue to function at } •
' the same level, the permit application fees, soil testing
� char9es, and loan inspection fees must be raised. This will, in �!':;=?
;:+ keeping with a general fees for services concept, allow the
I department to recover approximately 511,000 more than in 1486, �`''-
; ! assuming the number of requests for permits and loan inspections f,�`
remains the same. We recommend that the Board adopt the resolu- �,�;:
tion changing the fees, require the department to repott the
``j costs of the program on an annual basis, and allow the Board to �{;
;;-.� establish the fee structure for the next year, based on the cost
of conducting the program in the preceding year. F.�
- '130 South Galene Street Aapen,Coloredo 916'1'1 303/925-2020 �
:t,,..i.: .
'��"��,`b+-Fi,-:� . . . . .
` -
__-�� ......�t -.. _.._- -
��;: _.. _. .. ..._- , ' _ . .,
�
. �� � y� `�fv �._ ..,'y 7'i.i� � Fw,;
' `y. ry�{��y '�� � y��'�,'ti�fv � �� ��A'�� .
' #,� O,�1 VVt � . w. 1 �I� 1•�� � .1;� F
,=E�:� , a�F 1 � � � �'"�t ,y,�� i��'. �� � 1 u� a r�
,. . :'!f_r. , . ._,.�t��� . .. _. _-�YY�'a^a�r_,. , ���� 'r, ' .}�'^,M`���i,
r
TABLE 6.
PARTICIPANTS IN SURYEY
`.
: 4;" .
COUNTY FEE LEVEL* BASIS FOR FEE �;;;:.
��
80ULDER $150 COST OF SERVICE STUDY ���`'
- j CNAFFEE 0 --- � - _
;_;'�•j DELTA 65 UNSPECIFIED ;;
1 EAGLE 150 UNSPECIfIED g�
E.
:� EL PASO 150 COST OF SERVICE STUDY � . �
+' GUNNISON 50 UNSPECIFIED
�.j JEFFERSON 150 COST OF SERYICE STUDY 4'
4 .z j k.::
LARIMER 150 COST Of SERYICE STUOY
�:,��:,. LAS ANIMAS i50 UNSPECIFIED
�.,..
` ;j MESA 150 COST OF SERVICE
`^"'° MONTEZUMA 45 COST OF SERVICE $TUDY &
+::�- MARKET CONDITIONS
-:�
,,-.,k PUEBLO 150 COST OF SERUICE STUDY
'�r
�"`' PI7KIN 100 COST OF SERVICE STUDY
'`Y;�i'�� RIO BLANCO 25 UNSPECIFIED
ROUTT 25
�''�,.�
SAN JUAN BASIN 150 COST OF SERYICE STUDY
;�=�
��t.;. TRI-COUNTY DIS7RICT 130 COST OF SERVICE STUDY
C4�' WELD ]SO COST OF SERVICE STUDY
:�t
.:.�
';:+-.-
y;;
'� *DOES NOT INCLUDE PERC TEST
_ x.� :
�_�. S
- :�:.
- -�:;,
'�?�<-.
;��;:
:r ;X��;;`.
_'+' i,'�'
�'��;
�a - 86 -
a:;a:
Si �.__ ._...«.�_�.�. .:_. . -- - - :
��� .. . . _ _ � � _ _
� ��,�,�, . ___. -
:_ _ . . .
' ��1,�;� .
�s:.��s.,. .
1„�t:.;° .
:i'n:ii:F=l�i,t � • -
,�
� �,�', . • f � . .
...��y±s;._+ � ' � ,
`H��:-: . . ,
;�M1.��. � ..
'afY "'? . . .
�.a��;
,;�;;`�"
�
;.�'�,� ' .
!w'f"'�1:.
r"�2 4•;�;
':•5 rn.�' ` �� . .
,:_�::..::,, . .
M ,
: . ._.:.__. . ..... _ . : ... .�... . `
} '�"_r,. , . .. . .. . . . . . .
Oe 7.: � � ' i '
i`��'i`4',�€}�'`'�t �x��Yn> K , � .�'t` �*}
� � �y, �r '{'. ; �" � �S� .}�'tt��r },
. �'n ag5 ` �1+�7 yA,�{�21T�H.��$f .T+�}(�,l Y4 .�' � . ����+.��tX #' �e1S4Z�r � ��tt�t'��x`1�. ,�, 134�...p� i '.
� . � "M . . .. .�.�:�,��p.�;.... . .`+ .. }���•'L ..x�5��-.?.. �f��X� . , .�I��i.{,. ,•�''�bp��.%a�.� 7'
°,4.�
'e w .
u i i ` � '
ti i i � �
�� � i �
� 'u i � ui d i i °i
� y i � i i��
4 ' fl 1 q 1 m
.. U 1 � rl 1 C I I ri 1
\1 .1 1 1\1
' y °• �y i uii � iu iwi
`x � i:vii ai`a � �`.a iS; *
. G p.�� C 3 i C 1 C Y..1 C � G I ti'�.
O . OUl O�O W •1 O 1 O 1
�. .� '7Y�M�-I y�M C I M IMI
u AYIU 1 O U1�1 pM1Y �!UI
� $m m iami -� �.i �moui �al $�i
' e
°c i e�n S.i a�i e;
ti F y Y�w F� -
. , my� ; ��Q MIM qqlN IN .
_ Y m y W I `-' Y I Y NN M 1 d Y i d 1
� 4 Y� V 1 L 1 Y Y 1 L Y I L I
> q� V M
... ' N� au�N3; p w 1 w�U01 Ul�I Yl�
�� Oe bmG�oo' N o;oOV�;oo10; +�"
O V ry U 1 v�n 1 G o 1 p N 1 uf m 1 0 1 ' {�
- w�. I N I y u I� j w �w j ��
».. '' .t � I ♦I 1 � 1 i�1 1 �.
,�♦ 1 1 A 1 1 1 1 �
' � 1 1 1 �.
� �! � 1 1 1 1 �.
*� I I I 1 1 1 ;.
� 1 1 I
.. f � � ! 1 J I F:
1 1 t 1
...•.i'�Yv'•.�I i 1 1 H 1 i 1 �
..-#P�� °� �z i ��o }� � � �
8 �� I F I
:::?� m I O 1 V f Z 1 V 1 Zp 1 .
� lu i y1y� �PWS 101 �
1 i 1
Li 1 OG 1 V i
,�:�.=`.�i^� ri I Y 1 C 1 fd . .
� '� �I 2 i F I �1 Sh'. 1 Ny�C; �O; , _
N i p�p 1 f�9 1 wi i 3 I
� r :� 1 G
i.�
� ..� '._' . k
�
y Y q
� 1 1 1 I 1 1 � I 1 O� 1 1 R 1
1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 u ! 1 O 4
��� ����g � i iu i i i i i i u� wt+p1+ i �~ +Y+' . �
i i i w i � � i i � i+� o�a� i '�' �+�
, i � io � � � a.i i � �� u1m i � � m� �
Oy� � � i ��- i i � a i i o a 1.a �� a�
!.:"'r� £`�o� 1 1 I4 1 1 lu;� I IY\��wl\a[� 14y^1 i .
. �1 u 1 L.+ O t C 4 1 F 1
'������ i i.�+ i+�+ iu iu iLy iu�I�i.°y+ mi�°+ i.�°pi+°�+10 11 f°u +r+ i�p wi i
'Y�'�_j m 1 m.+i m I� i a y 1.i i N i 1.i m m��-ml ��S�`1 I�1 3+�i��-tl/ 1 O�.t i
�^�� � ycic"'ie ic i>co�iilc i��iZ..°���Z ieeiZuieoai2 i'��1e .
O O 1 O�1 O 1 O 1 O F 1 O 1 O 1 O w� 1 O 'M�I O Y 1 O V 1 O 1 O 1 O 1
Iti�1.� 1+� I.a 1 tiY I+�C I+aO�1.� /wim IMqI�i !ql�1!
uy ��I1 Uy 1 Uy 1 4y 1 Uy Y 1 Uy 1 UY�1 tyy!e 1 Uy 1 Uy�U 1 [�y/ad+1 Y�1 W I 4 1 O 1 Up j
^•.•,t M W q 1 O'q 1 W m f fL a I G 4 1 iY q f GC�q 1 M�m I D N� lL�1 W 4 1 O��1 �Yy 1 u 1 G 1
.� . �F V 1�-CiE�H������L����M�I�G u�����-CiM 11 N T 1�W 1�u i m 1�1
Y m I Y Y 1 y Y 1 Y Y� YI'G� Y Y 1 Y Y tl Y 1 Y O 1 O Y 1 tl 1 Og+ Y Y 1 O I Y I
:L� L Y Y 1 M L� L 1 1 M C 1�1 L 1 Y L Y tl Y I Y 1�1 Y Y 1 L'O 1 L'J 1 M y 1 O 1 Y 1
O OI ql ;-Hal i!1 91�+9 �atll�101w..�Iwti1+�W OI aItil
N� .i;Hl3�NS�N'S�OmI1NS;NX�WmR�1ro3�WNIN>iWYt��lYl�l
.:,� 00 OO O i o 0 1 O o 1 O o 1 •Y 1 Y�1 00 4 1 0o n.le 1 e o 1 e Y�1�O O 1 o w 1 o O 1 4 1 0 1
O�O O�o O 1 O O� O 1 Y O 1 O 4 1 M 1 1 ' 'm, � 1 ,.;.
1 1 0.2 1 W ; W; .S.1 . .1 1 �1 O�1 N V 1
N u1 1 N t�1 N O 1 wl�1 1 i b�N N 1 N.-�1�n :
eihwlwwix�wiiOlZwi�xiw Iu�niarlr�iaCl4 1$Ix�l {.
..'S �+ 1 il +� +1 1 1 1 +1 +1 1 1 1 +1 1 t '..
,j ; � � t ; i ! i i � i ! i i ; �:
,,,
i i i i i i i i i i . � i i � i ��.����;:
,.� . i i i i i i i i i i � i i { ` � L
i � � � i � i �N � i i � � � -.
. � 1 I N I M 1 N 1 1 1 1(a 1 N I 1 1 1 1
::'� . i 1 F 1 H �y 1 1 1 !2 1 1 1 1 1 I I � !
iz �z p i i ia. io �� � i i izia�i � .
E IF 1� 1� 10 �i� IN IH IH IH IF jN IF I�IZI . .
' .t 1 2 f V 1 U 1 V 1 F+ H 1 1 1 V 1 Z � 1 �V I O 1 ��'�
� i$ i Q io i°i i s i� 1� i'�o iw i�u �g �� i°1 i$i {.�
i� < ;�, ;a �y ;a ;° �° 1� ��, :° �r �° ; :���f .
N ia i� �z i� ie� im im iz i�z i� i°6 i� i°i�i
o I� �� !� �� 13 ;z f£ 1� �g �o I� �g ���Q�
,� _\_... . .. _.. �.,.,., _ .
t � • .
fr . ... . .. .... . . . � .
t� �T7 . . . � . . � . . .. . . . . .
. �o� �i��,C%. ... _ . -. . . ,
.��::i:.��w.FF: . . . .
k t: .
f.t., _
. �,`y;"-� . �
YL.G,� . � . .
='T'N"':+:;.,;' . . . - ...
;�:a:i�;,`� ._•,.. .
:.;,,�:'.�}.'''�'-'4�'�+-!
:�:.\� 2:L:si. _
+f.��.
�
,;Y�.:S .' . .
.'t r�,F1<
:.,���: � t'.
�y��f�_:
�':1 :Y:S� � �
!^„3: ` .